News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
Cus - Optical Fibre Cables merit classification under CTH 9001 and not under CTH 8544 - benefit of notfn 24/2005 not available - Importer loses on classification issue but wins on ground of time bar: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JAN 23, 2015: THE Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Nhava Sheva classified the optical fibre cables imported by the appellant under CTH 9001 and denied the benefit of notification No. 24/2005-Cus dated 1-3-2005 claimed by the appellant by classifying the product under CTH 8544.

Consequently,the adjudicating authority confirmed a differential duty demand ofRs.2.68crores and also confiscated the Optical Fibre Cables. Penalties were also imposed.

After considering the elaborate submissions made by both sides the CESTAT observed that there are two issues for consideration -

What is the correct classification of OFCs imported - whether they merit classification under CTH 85447090 or under CTH 9001 of the Customs Tariff?

+ The CESTAT noted that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Optel Communications Ltd. - 2005-TIOL-386-CESTAT-DEL.

+ After extensively extracting from the aforesaid decision and the ruling of the Advance Authority for Ruling in the case of Alcatel India Ltd. - 2006-TIOL-13-ARA-CUS the Bench observed - We agree entirely with the above technical and legal analysis made by the AAR in the Alcatel case and adopt the same in the present proceedings. Accordingly we hold that the correct classification of OFCs imported by the appellant is under CTH9001 of the Customs Tariff.

+ While placing reliance on the AAR decision, the Bench viewed -

We are well aware that the said decision is binding only the appellant and the department and cannot form a binding precedent. Nevertheless, the said decision examines in detail the various technical issues involved and has a significant persuasive value. The issue raised therein were also identical to those raised before us in the present case. Further, the technical expert of the appellant Mr. x x x in his statement recorded under section 108 by the investigating officer has also confirmed that the manufacturing process of optical fibre cables imported by their company was similar to the manufacturing process of OFC described in the Advance Ruling judgment in the case of Alcatel Ltd. and that described in the Optel communication case cited supra. In view of the above factual position, in our considered view the analysis of the issue in Alcatel case is very much relevant and applicable to the facts of the case before us.

Whether extended period of time could be invoked for confirmation of duty demand and imposition of penalties in the present case?

++ The appellant's contention is that they have been classifying the impugned goods under CTH 8544.70 even when the duty rates were the same on goods falling under CTH 8544 and CTH 9001 and the fact that the department has not sought to demand any differential duty in respect of OFCs imported by the appellant during the period prior to 1-3-2005 under 25 bills of entry also supports their contention.  We find merit in this contention.

++ Though the principles of resjudicata and estoppel do not apply to tax assessments since the cause of action for each assessment is distinct, yet Revenue has to prove that the appellant mis-declared the description of the goods under import with an intent to evade payment of duty. No such evidence is forthcoming in the instant case and the only evidence adduced is that Mr. Manohar Rampal was aware that the goods merited classification under CTH 9001 as indigenously procured goods were being classified under the said heading.

++ We are afraid this evidence is not conclusive enough to establish the revenue's case of mis-declaration and suppression. In the present case, we find that the show cause notice for demand of differential duty has been issued only on 8-2-2007 for the imports made during March 2005 to January 2006.  Thus the demand is hit by time bar and we hold accordingly.

Conclusion:

+++ Optical Fibre Cables imported by the appellant merit classification under CTH 9001 of the Customs Tariff and not under CTH 85447090;

+++ However, the differential duty demand on account of such re-classification is hit by time bar.  As a result, the entire duty demand along with interest thereon is not sustainable in law.  Consequently, the confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine and imposition of penalties on the main appellant and its employee are also not sustainable in law and are accordingly set aside.

(See 2015-TIOL-177-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023